Nonduality

[Squatting Monkey]

Can anyone recommend any writings/teachings on this fascinating subject.

Not particularly bothered about which spiritual tradition they come from.

Thanks in advance

 

SM

[sasblamthanb]

The Return to Oneness

Zivorad Mihajlovic Slavinski

2005

 

hth

[Todd]

Adyashanti's stuff. For books, I recommend Emptiness Dancing and My Secret is Silence. A lot of audio and video clips and short writings are available here.

 

Full length satsangs are available here. There are more in the "Library" section, some of which are free.

 

He also does an internet radio show a couple times a month. The next one is tomorrow at 6pm pacific. You can find it from the link above.

 

Good luck!

 

There is also a lot of video of a mixed bag of teachers available at Never Not Here.

 

And then there is Red Pine's TaoTeChing...

 

And most importantly, there is your own experience...

 

It just depends on what resonates with you (which might be a lot of meditation or ignoring all teachings whatsoever).

[Ian]

I am That, by Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj

 

and, especially,

 

Perfect Brilliant Stillness by David Carse.

 

The latter also available spoken by the actor Terence Stamp.

[Pranaman]

this neuroanatomist, Jill Bolte Taylor, experienced nirvana and nonduality when there was a bloodclot in left brain and she had a stroke. Her story of the experience is very cool, and her language is science.

 

[forestofsouls]

These days, when I pick up a book, I'm torn. On the one hand, I want to learn a slightly different angle. On the other, I know the true way is to examine what's going on, here and now, and not getting lost in dialogue.

 

Nevertheless, for books:

 

Path of Sri Ramana Part One.

[Birch]

"Proust and The Squid"

 

Then what everyone else suggested;-)

 

Failing that. Talk to people.

[voidisyinyang]

The best non-duality book is "NOTHING EVER HAPPENED" a biography of H.W.L. Poonja aka Poonjaji -- by David Godman. It's a three volume detailed account of how he became Ramana Maharshi's replacement so to speak.

 

http://www.realization.org/page/doc0/doc0096a.htm

 

http://www.avadhuta.com/papajibooks.html#NEH

Edited April 16, 2009 by drew hempel

[Lucky7Strikes]

Back to the Truth - 5000 years of Advaita

 

It's got a lot of different takes on it from various sources. 5000 years of sources...

[Sunya]

this is a great site by a very enlightened person who you can email directly if you have questions

 

http://www.heartofnow.com/

 

I'm going to post here with the assumption that you are actually interested in experiencing non-duality and not just reading about it

 

it should be understood though that non-duality is very different in Buddhism than all other religions. the difference is the Right View. if you do not have the view of emptiness you will ALWAYS sink into an Advaita experience, a 'oneness' with all phenomena. the same goes for any other tradition. they all basically talk about the same type of experience, this is NOT enlightenment which is the goal of Buddhist practice. this is because the view is wrong and the realization is tainted. its not final. the wrong view is when you give phenomena 'substance', and believe that there is some eternal essence to all reality and to the "Self"

 

"I am That" is wrong view, some say that they have "no view" but that isn't true, those are just words.. and people try to be clever. the view of emptiness found only in Buddhism gives you a truly clear view free of misconceptions and anything to hang onto, thus a crystal clear realization comes free of delusion. cause and effect, right view --> perfect enlightenment.

 

I'm not trying to sound like a sectarian fundamentalist, not at all. my focus of study is Comparative Religion. i've come to this through intensive analysis.

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/200...experience.html

 

7 stages of Experience, written by someone who has traveled the path.

 

no one without the right view will get past stage 4

 

 

all the best,

mikael

Edited April 16, 2009 by mikaelz

[Squatting Monkey]

I'm going to post here with the assumption that you are actually interested in experiencing non-duality and not just reading about it

 

This is very much what I have in mind, it's just that I need to understand it a little first.

Would you say that the self inquiry method of Nissargadatta, Ramana Maharshi etc to be different from the zen koan 'original face'?

Great links by the way. I'll have a good look at these over the next few days.

Thanks

[goldisheavy]

Can anyone recommend any writings/teachings on this fascinating subject.

Not particularly bothered about which spiritual tradition they come from.

Thanks in advance

 

SM

 

http://www.damo-qigong.net/project/conscious/index02.htm

 

This is excellent. In fact, it's so excellent that no one should be surprised if I talk about it 10 more times.

[Sunya]

This is very much what I have in mind, it's just that I need to understand it a little first.

Would you say that the self inquiry method of Nissargadatta, Ramana Maharshi etc to be different from the zen koan 'original face'?

Great links by the way. I'll have a good look at these over the next few days.

Thanks

 

hey Squatting Monkey, i'm glad you enjoyed the links. they are gold mines especially the blog.

 

methods are very similar among traditions. self inquiry of zen could be similiar to self inquiry of Ramana Maharshi. Tantric Yoga is also similiar in Hinduism and Buddhism (Tibetan), Kundalini yoga and Chandali (Tummo) yoga for example is very similiar. likewise all traditions have meditation and maybe even some sort of mindfulness practice.

 

the difference though, like i said earlier, is the view. I had a really good conversation yesterday with the person that runs the blog which I linked you too. He clarified things for me further... the differences are very subtle, but very paramount and important

 

the experience is the same, non duality, but without the right view your mind distorts the experience and brings it back to the Self, identifying with everything. thus you see in Hinduism such statements as "I am everything", or "you are that", its the identification with everything that is the problem.

 

the tendency of hindu advaita is to look for a source of phenomena, a 'ground of being', or some sort of God, Brahman, something or other. maybe Taoism is similiar. i don't know, but what I do know is that in Buddhism complete realization is seeing that between source and manifestation there is no difference, no duality. Hindu non duality focuses on the background, and identifies with the background. a permeating essence, God. or it could go the other way and identify with the foreground. but in Buddhist non-duality there is no background, and there is no foreground.

 

this is an example of identification with phenomena--

 

Jesus said, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained. Split a piece of wood; I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."

 

Do you see how Self is imposed onto reality? that is wrong view in the Buddhist sense.

 

"It is non-dual, but it is resorting back to a Self. Once a practitioner succeeded in bringing this background to foreground, it is understood that the Background is an illusion. Only the tendency to divide blinding us, there cannot be a Source and Manifestation. Like hearing sound, an Advaidin says Awareness is the isness or presence of sound. But Buddhism sees Sound as Presence itself."

[xabir2005]

[mewtwo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N83fWqmljzk...=PL&index=3

 

 

Remeber to hit the hd button.

[Squatting Monkey]

Excellent stuff. Many thanks.

The nondual/emptiness of Buddhism is definitely the practice I'm interested in pursuing.

I have a background in vipassana meditation having been trained by Theravadin monks.

Recently I have become interested in zen and nondual/emptiness nature of it.

The information that I've received in this thread has given me much

to ponder.

 

SM

[xabir2005]

(sorry there was an error, double posted)

Edited April 17, 2009 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

[Ian]

"I am That" is wrong view,

 

Might be useful to be aware that "I am that" is, if not a mistranslation, at least an unhelpful translation. In Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj's native language it would come out a bit more like:

 

"That" is what "I" is

 

Which is an important distinction in that "that" is a shorthand for ultimate subjectivity, and really really needs to be the subject.

 

All this from PBS.

[dwai]

 

the experience is the same, non duality, but without the right view your mind distorts the experience and brings it back to the Self, identifying with everything. thus you see in Hinduism such statements as "I am everything", or "you are that", its the identification with everything that is the problem.

 

the tendency of hindu advaita is to look for a source of phenomena, a 'ground of being', or some sort of God, Brahman, something or other. maybe Taoism is similiar. i don't know, but what I do know is that in Buddhism complete realization is seeing that between source and manifestation there is no difference, no duality. Hindu non duality focuses on the background, and identifies with the background. a permeating essence, God. or it could go the other way and identify with the foreground. but in Buddhist non-duality there is no background, and there is no foreground.

 

"It is non-dual, but it is resorting back to a Self. Once a practitioner succeeded in bringing this background to foreground, it is understood that the Background is an illusion. Only the tendency to divide blinding us, there cannot be a Source and Manifestation. Like hearing sound, an Advaidin says Awareness is the isness or presence of sound. But Buddhism sees Sound as Presence itself."

 

You have very poor knowledge of "Hindu" Advaita.

" Tat Tvam Asi" and "Aham Brahmasmi" are two very important pronouncements that have gotten lost in the mist of avidya (Ignorance).

 

Tat Tvam Asi -- YOu are That

Aham Brahmasmi -- I am Brahman

 

Where is this ground of phenomenon? Buddhists call this ground something else, that's all. Taoists call it Tao, Advaitins (and all Vedantins in general) call it Brahman. There is no ground...but everything is the ground. There is no phenomenon, but everything is the phenomenon.

 

Advaita Vedanta calls the practitioner to use his intellect and a categorical framework (which comprises of these "phenomenon") to rise above the categorical framework. That is why there is no name for Brahman, only Brahman. There can be no description of that which is beyond the duality of phenomena.

[Sunya]

Edited April 17, 2009 by mikaelz

[forestofsouls]

You have very poor knowledge of "Hindu" Advaita.

" Tat Tvam Asi" and "Aham Brahmasmi" are two very important pronouncements that have gotten lost in the mist of avidya (Ignorance).

 

Tat Tvam Asi -- YOu are That

Aham Brahmasmi -- I am Brahman

 

Dwai,

 

Check out the Path of Sri Ramana Part One for a critique of these techniques.

 

Sri Sadhu Om suggests that we might stop at the I am...

 

Mikaelz,

 

Actually, there is a funny Buddhist story about Brahman in Buddhism. It is said that Brahman in a past life was the greatest cultivator int he universe. When the universe collapsed, he died. Due to his merit, he was the first one born in this universe. At first, he was lonely, so he started to wish there were other beings. Then the second being appeared, and the third. From this, Brahman made the mistake that he is the creator.

 

I would be careful about comparing and contrasting different end states, i.e. enlightenment unless you are VERY far along the path. These theoretical arguments usually come apart in the light of serious, ongoing practice.

 

 

Shankara borrowed a lot from Nagarjuna [ I know this will ruffle some feathers, so please read this thesis http://etd.gsu.edu/theses/available/etd-11...o_200612_ma.pdf ] but what he didn't is what sets Buddhist enlightenment apart from Advaita, its a deeper and more subtle realization. there is no Atman in Buddhism, this presence is negated with Anatta, and there is no Brahman in Buddhism, this background is negated through Shunyata. This negation is important. it is the antidote to having a wrong view and having a limited interpretation of non-dual experience, like having some fog on your viewing lens.

Edited April 17, 2009 by forestofsouls

[Sunya]

 

 

Mikaelz,

 

Actually, there is a funny Buddhist story about Brahman in Buddhism. It is said that Brahman in a past life was the greatest cultivator int he universe. When the universe collapsed, he died. Due to his merit, he was the first one born in this universe. At first, he was lonely, so he started to wish there were other beings. Then the second being appeared, and the third. From this, Brahman made the mistake that he is the creator.

 

 

that is Brahma, not Brahman. All of the Hindu Gods are talked about in Buddhism as living in the God realm and suffering from excess pride and delusions of grandeur. lol. this is quite obvious if you read Hindu mythology, i took a class on the topic and found them quite ridiculous! why anyone would want to worship these beings is beyond me.

 

 

I would be careful about comparing and contrasting different end states, i.e. enlightenment unless you are VERY far along the path. These theoretical arguments usually come apart in the light of serious, ongoing practice.

 

noted, thank you. but i feel its important to differentiate as my approach, and that of most buddhist traditions, is to have solid conceptual understanding as a framework for realizing the subtle difference of complete realization. this includes understanding the difference between Monism [Eternalism], Nihilism [Nothing-ism] and Buddhism. this topic is covered in every introductory text in Vajrayana such as Words of My Perfect Teacher by Patrul Rinpoche

Edited April 17, 2009 by mikaelz

[dwai]

Dwai,

 

Check out the Path of Sri Ramana Part One for a critique of these techniques.

 

Sri Sadhu Om suggests that we might stop at the I am...

 

Mikaelz,

 

Actually, there is a funny Buddhist story about Brahman in Buddhism. It is said that Brahman in a past life was the greatest cultivator int he universe. When the universe collapsed, he died. Due to his merit, he was the first one born in this universe. At first, he was lonely, so he started to wish there were other beings. Then the second being appeared, and the third. From this, Brahman made the mistake that he is the creator.

 

I would be careful about comparing and contrasting different end states, i.e. enlightenment unless you are VERY far along the path. These theoretical arguments usually come apart in the light of serious, ongoing practice.

 

We must not misunderstand and mistake polemic and rhetoric for knowledge.

 

Buddhist doctrines are replete with various interesting stories and opinions about the Vedic/Vedantic tradition, since they were competing against this massive system (and they lost) in the birth place of Buddhism, ie India.

 

Here's an excellent essay (not written by one of those superstars everyone seems to not see beyond) that discusses the dynamics between Buddha (Siddhartha) and the Upanishads (Vedantic literature).

 

http://medhajournal.com/index.php?option=c...&Itemid=269

 

We must not misunderstand and mistake polemic and rhetoric for knowledge.

 

Buddhist doctrines are replete with various interesting stories and opinions about the Vedic/Vedantic tradition, since they were competing against this massive system (and they lost) in the birth place of Buddhism, ie India.

 

Here's an excellent essay (not written by one of those superstars everyone seems to not see beyond) that discusses the dynamics between Buddha (Siddhartha) and the Upanishads (Vedantic literature).

 

http://medhajournal.com/index.php?option=c...&Itemid=269

 

What I'm trying to suggest here is that studying Advaita without Vedanta is like studying Electronic instrumentation without any knowledge of Electronics. The foundation has to be right...think about the semantic differences after you understand first one and then the other side(s) of the argument.

[forestofsouls]

Of course, this would indicate that Advaita is culturally dependent and therefore not based on human universals. Master Sheng Yen talks about the difference between Buddhism and Buddhadharma. Buddhism arises in a certain socio-cultural context. Buddhadharma is the way things are, independent of time, place, and culture. I would think the same goes for knowledge of Self, Tao, etc.

 

A lot of people subscribe to Ramana Maharshi's techniques--- there is no indication that one had to know Vedanta in order to understand him. In fact, he instructed that the quickest way to realization was to practice self-enquiry, not study Vedanta. As a counterpoint, I might suggest that studying Vedanta is like reading a menu, rather than tasting the meal.

 

What I'm trying to suggest here is that studying Advaita without Vedanta is like studying Electronic instrumentation without any knowledge of Electronics. The foundation has to be right...think about the semantic differences after you understand first one and then the other side(s) of the argument.